Another German design concept that Ive been looking at. Thinking about contra-rotating props for torque control and for lateral control.
Vertical takeoff will be difficult as prop wash will have little effect on tail surfaces as well as problems with wake control. So maybe the control surfaces needs to be closer to the fan. I can see a 3 axis gyro will stabilize but will need to some how connect this for roll (torque)control ( no wind over ailerons).
Some helicopter stabilization systems use a camera for orientation while hovering, so this is another option. Vertical control will not be a main concern but will focus on horizontal control for now.
Right now looking at airfoils to use for the duct.

Towards the end of 1940, the Lockheed Aircraft Company believed that a radical new approach was required to produce a fundamentally different aircraft. The company wanted to build a fighter that had such an advantage in speed and altitude that nothing made by any other country could touch.

Among their many talented engineers was Nathan Price, a designer that developed a steam turbine driving a propeller that powered and flew a Travelair Biplane in 1933 before he started working at Lockheed. He continued to develop the concept that eventually led to a gas-turbine jet-propulsion engine. More people were added to the job of working out the details of this engine and of course an airframe to put it in. Finally a formal proposal was made to the Army Air Corp in February 1942.

It described a Mach 0.94 aircraft capable of flying at 50,000 ft. The L-133 was to be a canard single seater aircraft powered by two of the L-1000 axial-flow engine. It length was to be 48 ft. and 4 in. and a span of 46 ft. 8 in. Armament was planned to be four 20 mm cannons concentrated in the nose. Besides it speed other unique concepts were boundary-layer control and reaction thrust roll control. Rather than be impressed the Air Corp. was nearly horrified. It told Lockheed to stop wasting time and to build more P-38 Lightings. At this time period and because of their lack of experience, the American military planners were still thinking that defending aircraft would be fighting incoming bombers at...Continue Reading

Images

This 1941 aircraft design was to be a possible successor to the Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighter. Although of a unusual configuration for that time, there were advantages (and disadvantages) to its rear wing/forward canard construction.
The Hs P.75 featured a tapered fuselage, with the slightly swept-back wings being mounted mid-fuselage and set back to the rear of the aircraft. The widened fuselage was designed to house the Daimler Benz DB 610 engine, which were two DB 605 engines joined side-by-side, just aft of the cockpit. These were the same engines that the Heinkel He 177 used, and were found to be prone to overheating and catching fire.Due to this development, they were changed in 1942 to the liquid-cooled, 24 cylinder Daimler Benz DB 613 engines (two coupled DB 603s) that produced 3500 horsepower. Both engine configurations were to drive contrarotating propellers (to offset tourque) of a 3.2m (10' 6") diameter via an extension shaft. There were a pair of swept-back canards located on the nose of the aircraft, that were to serve the purpose of elevators. The vertical tail unit was mounted beneath the fuselage, so that it could act as a tail bumper upon takeoff so that the propellers would not strike the ground. Since the propellers were located at the rear in a pusher configuration, a tricycle landing gear arrangement was chosen. Fuel was contained in three tanks, one in each wing and one behind the cockpit. A single pilot sat in the cockpit which was...Continue Reading